Dean Smith (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister to the Shadow Treasurer) | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Secrecy Provisions Amendment (Sunsetting Provision) Bill 2026. This is a short bill, and it does one thing: it extends the operation of section 122.4 of the Criminal Code by six months from 29 June 2026 to 29 December 2026.

Section 122.4 gives criminal effect to a range of Commonwealth nondisclosure duties. It makes it an offence for Commonwealth officers and others engaged by Commonwealth entities to disclose information in breach of duties imposed elsewhere under Commonwealth law. Those duties protect sensitive information that Australians rightly expect the government to safeguard, including tax records, health information and other confidential data held in trust. Without this bill, section 122.4 sunsets on 29 June—today. If that occurs before parliament settles the broader reforms, a gap would open up in the criminal law protecting that information.

The coalition will support this bill. We support it because allowing such a gap to emerge, even temporarily, would not be responsible. But this bill is not the reform itself; the substantive reform sits in the companion legislation, the Secrecy Provisions Amendment (Repealing Offences) Bill 2026. The coalition does not support that bill in its current form, which is why this extension is necessary. Once this extension passes, the existing law continues to operate for another six months, no offence lapses, no protection disappears and no regulatory gap arises. The current framework remains in force while parliament properly considers the reforms intended to replace it. This bill gets the sequence right. It preserves the existing protections while parliament completes its work on the legislation intended to replace them.

For that reason, the coalition supports the Secrecy Provisions Amendment (Sunsetting Provision) Bill 2026. We support the continuity it provides and the opportunity it creates for parliament to properly scrutinise the substantive reforms, and we'll use that time to argue that those reforms must be settled before they are enacted, be tested with stakeholders and return to parliament in a form that is genuinely ready to become the law of the Commonwealth. On this basis, I commend the bill to the Senate.

David Shoebridge (NSW, Australian Greens) | Link to this | Hansard source

We're here debating the Secrecy Provisions Amendment (Sunsetting Provision) Bill 2026 literally at midnight before the provisions expire, because Labor has again failed to meet the moment on secrecy reviews and on transparency. Labor have again failed to live up to the promise they made in 2022 that they would be at least marginally better than the Morrison government on secrecy and transparency. It's turned out that, actually, the Labor Albanese government is even worse than the Morrison government on both secrecy and transparency.

We're here extending these secrecy provisions by another six months. The Greens won't oppose this, because this allows some cross-party and good-faith discussions about the far more important fundamental secrecy reforms. There are the recommendations from the INSLM, the recommendations from civil society and the recommendations from whistleblower groups; those reforms are essential.

But what did Labor do? Labor decided to bring forward one of the most ill-conceived packages to parliament, with a piece of legislation that went to a Labor-dominated committee. If you read the report from that Labor-dominated committee—the majority report, not the dissenting report from the Greens or from the coalition—it says that bill was fine and it should be passed, even though there's not a single stakeholder who says that.

What did Labor propose to do? Labor has a secrecy fetish. They have an even worse secrecy fetish than Scott Morrison had. Labor had a proposal to get rid of 300 secrecy provisions across multiple different parts of the statute book, and they picked 300 provisions that had never been used. They said, 'Okay, we'll get rid of those and we'll turn them into a general duty to maintain confidentiality.' In return for getting rid of 300 basically dead-letter provisions, Labor said what they now want to introduce is a new, catch-all secrecy provision that would put criminal penalties for breaching government secrecy not just on members of the Public Service but on pretty much anyone who consulted with or engaged with the Public Service.

Not only did they propose a big, new, catch-all secrecy provision—and they said that they were doing it to implement the INSLM's recommendations—but they seem to forget a series of key elements of what the INSLM was proposing. The INSLM said that, yes, hundreds of secrecy offences should be wiped off the statute books and replaced with, instead of criminal penalties, general duties of confidentiality. Then the INSLM said there should be then put in place a broader secrecy offence but that secrecy offence needs to have checks and balances in it. It needs to properly protect journalists, it needs to properly protect whistleblowers, it needs to have a public interest element in it and it needs to have a harm threshold before people go to jail for breaching Labor's big, new, catch-all secrecy offence.

What did Labor do? Labor put in place, or proposed, a big, new, catch-all secrecy offence but completely failed to implement any of those checks and balances that the INSLM recommended. They thought that they could just bluster on through with this piece of legislation. They took it to the committee, and, even when every single stakeholder who engaged with that committee said, 'Yes, we kind of support the idea of getting rid of 300 secrecy offences, but you can't implement this big, new, catch-all like you're doing,' Labor then writes a report that says it's all fine—nothing to see here—that the parliament should just push it through and that there's broad support. Did the Attorney-General not read any of the submissions? Probably, the Attorney didn't. But did nobody in the Attorney-General's department actually read the submissions which said civil society hated this reform?

It's one of these moments where, thankfully, every other political party, that I can tell, in this chamber has said to Labor: 'No, we're not going to support your big, new secrecy offence. We're not just going to waft it on through so that you can put more David McBrides in jail and more Richard Boyles in jail—more whistleblowers in jail—and then extend your ability to put people in jail not just from the Public Service but from, maybe, environmental groups or civil society groups who engage with you too, if you've given them secret information and they share it.' We're not going to do that, so the Attorney-General's cunning plan to create Labor's big, new, catch-all secrecy offence has died. It has run into the inevitable brick wall that comes when you bring a piece of legislation in that has no friends. That legislation and reform has died. So then what happens? Then, unless they urgently now extend the sunset on these other Commonwealth secrecy provisions, there'll be no statutory controls in place.

So here we are in a muddle and a mess completely of Labor's creation because Labor has a fetish for secrecy—to hide what they're doing from the public and to attack anybody who dares blow the whistle on their government, tell the truth about what's going on in the Labor government or disclose what's happening in the defence department or the tax office or Australia Post. Because they are so keen to stifle any kind of dissent or whistleblowing, they've got themselves into yet another muddle, just like they did with their FOI reforms that came into this chamber without a single friend outside of the Labor Party—just like they did with the FOI reforms, thinking that some cunning plan in the Attorney-General's office to hack into transparency or to hack into FOI would somehow magically pass this Senate.

It's about time Labor learnt that the public actually cares about access to government information. It's about time the Labor Party learnt that their promises in 2022 about being transparent are now ringing incredibly hollow with the Australian public. It's about time Labor learnt that, if you want to have actual reform in this space, then maybe the Attorney-General should pick up the phone and talk with at least one person outside of the Labor Party before you bring the next cunning plan into the Senate.

With those brief comments, we indicate we won't be opposing this, because this gives six months for that kind of good faith negotiation to happen, so we can come forward with a plan that doesn't double down on Labor's horrible record of jailing whistleblowers, crunching the public service and threatening them if they dare go and tell the public. It gives six months to learn those lessons, and I hope Labor does.

Jessica Collins (NSW, Liberal Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise in support of the Secrecy Provisions Amendment (Sunsetting Provision) Bill 2026. The bill makes a single technical amendment to the Criminal Code Act 1995. It extends the sunsetting date of section 122.4 by six months from 29 June 2026 to 29 December 2026. It does not expand, alter or restrict the existing operation of the provision in any way. It simply maintains the current legal position while parliament considers the government's broader secrecy law reforms.

While I support this bill, as does the coalition, it stands as a telling illustration of a government that is reactive rather than proactive. This is legislation on the run. Labor have not put together their actual secrecy bill. Instead, they drip feed these bills to limp legislation along until they've sorted it out. And this is not the product of a considered and forward-looking approach to the present and future architecture of our secrecy offences regime. Instead, this is Labor's piecemeal approach to national security.

This is now the third occasion on which parliament has been asked to extend the operation of section 122.4 because a broader program of reform remains incomplete. We are again confronted with a temporary measure necessitated by the government's failure to finalise its own legislative agenda in a timely and coherent manner. The government has introduced a separate bill which proposes to repeal and reshape elements of the secrecy framework. That legislation raises serious questions. It is before the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee and is undergoing appropriate scrutiny. The stakeholders have raised concerns that warrant careful and methodical consideration, and the coalition will not approach those reforms with haste or complacency.

But, while that scrutiny proceeds, the parliament cannot ignore the immediate consequences of allowing section 122.4 to lapse on 29 June 2026. The ramifications of that outcome are serious. There would be a clear gap in criminal liability in relation to breaches of a broad range of Commonwealth secrecy obligations. Information entrusted to government could be disclosed without the application of a general offence. Agencies would face uncertainty as to the enforceability of their secrecy frameworks, and the integrity of Commonwealth information-handling would be diminished. This is not an abstract concern. The information at stake includes health records and taxation information. It includes personal data provided by Australians who rightly expect it to be safeguarded. It includes national security and commercial information. These are not trivial matters, and they go to the heart of public trust in the Commonwealth.

This bill performs a necessary function. It preserves the existing provision while parliament undertakes the more complex task of determining the future shape of the secrecy regime. It ensures continuity and stability in the law while that larger debate proceeds. The broader reforms deserve careful scrutiny, and, as we saw last week with this taxing Labor government, when they legislate in haste and without a mandate, Australians are likely to suffer. An example of this is Labor's new widow tax, where a widow would be given a tax bill along with a death certificate under the Albanese Labor government. The coalition, of course, will clean up that mess on our return to government, and we are vigilant in holding this government to account on other legislation, such as this very important piece.

The coalition supports a continuation of this secrecy offence and will vote for its passage because it aligns with a longstanding and principled position. We have always supported strong protections for sensitive Commonwealth information, but we have also insisted that those protections be proportionate, workable and subject to proper parliamentary oversight. This extension reflects that balance. It preserves necessary safeguards while allowing parliament to undertake the methodical scrutiny that significant legal reform demands. There is also an undeniable nexus between secrecy provisions and the broader national security settings of this country.

These laws are not peripheral; they are integral to the framework that enables government to operate securely, intelligence agencies to function effectively and sensitive operations to be conducted without compromise. The coalition has consistently recognised that reality. We are the party of national security. We have demonstrated, over many years, a resolute commitment to maintaining the integrity of Australia's defence capabilities and intelligence architecture. Only the coalition can be trusted to steward these responsibilities with the requisite seriousness. Under the next coalition government, Australia's national security settings, from defence capability through to security intelligence and foreign intelligence, will be coherent, robust and properly integrated. Australians will be safer, because the systems that protect them will be designed with clarity and maintained with vigilance by a government that understands the threats and acts accordingly.

This bill and broader coalition national security policy are at the heart of protecting Australians' way of life. At the next election, only the coalition is the clear choice to deliver that, as we have for decades. I commend the bill to the Senate.

Nita Green (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Tourism) | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank senators for their contributions and their indication of support for this bill, the Secrecy Provisions Amendment (Sunsetting Provision) Bill 2026. It is vital that parliament has time to consider properly the importance of secrecy reforms proposed in the Secrecy Provisions Amendment (Repealing Offences) Bill 2026, and this bill, that we will hopefully pass in due course, will allow that to occur. So, again, I thank all senators and I commend the bill to the Senate.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.